I watched Secretary of State Powells address to the U.N. this morning inre Iraq and its non-compliance to resolution 1411. I thought that his argument was well presented, however I noticed that while analyzing the tape recordings he did some interjecting and assuming which I think may have hurt their credibility with some nations.

U.N. or not, the fact is we (the US ) are going to war with Iraq. Hell, we're already bobming some of their defence systems. I'm wondering since we have members from around the globe, if you saw this address do you think there is sufficient evidence to support this act?

I didn't see the thing but I've watched it on the news and read about it in the paper.
My thoughts are that it proves absolutely nothing. It's an indication that something isn't right at most but hardly a smoking gun.
If evidence like that were to make the difference then you could prove just about anything.

It's sad that the "proof" wasn't better since it's rather obvious that a war is comming anyways. Now the US will have pretty much the rest of the world against them in this matter and that isn't good at all. Bushs politics has done enought damage as it is to foragin relations (the raised taxes on imported steel for example).
The US is alienating itself and that is being apprehanded as if they are trying to make em self the lone rulers of the globe (at least amongst the not-pro-america folks).

We'll just have to wait and see how things turn out. Hopefully the war will go smoothly (probably not) and the intelligence services of the US can cover up the biggest blunders.

I belive that America made a big ass out of themself on this one. Even though I know not every american agrees with the current leader it still feels as one nation, one people, one opinion.

Yeah, i think manneman and GK got it right, i don't think it proves anything, but that, sadly, won't stop the US on attacking Irak. They been doing what ever they think it's "right" all along, and they don't care even if the rest or majority of the world is against it.

What was the reason of the first war with Irak? That Irak decided to invade Kuwait, because they belive they had a reason, and no one else saw it that way, including the UN.
So, if the US decides to invade Irak because they think they have a reason, or for "national security" whatever they call it, and the rest of the world, including the UN is against it, should they form a coalittion and defend Irak the same way the defend Kuwait? If this was a just world, they would, but i doubt it.

And if they say that Irak has broke a UN resolution? lot's of countries has, including Israel, and The US. and the UN has not make a military intervation on this countries.

I think that Powell's address to the UN was more to gain adepts inside the US rather than outside, and seeing the first post i think it did work.

I think if you live in any country outside the US you should be aginst the war on Irak, even if you don't care about the people living on that country, which i do care about; because, what will stop the US from doing it on any other country in the name of "national security"?

just another way to see who can piss the highest up the wall.

Of course, some use "supersoakers" to cheat, but others dont...

or not that they will admit too

h34r:" class="inlineimg" />

That's probably true. I don't belive the UN gives a flying f*ck about what evidence a country with clearly hostile intentions can bring.
The UN has a team down there and they'll read their report and make a desicion based upon that.

I haven't seen the it myself but from what I've heard. I really don't know how to base any solidarity to the things he said were true. Now I'm saying that his evidence is not true I'm just saying that if this were to go to court (just an example) the evidence would have to have been backed up by experts (no knock at Secretary of State Powell he is an expert at feild and does an excellent job) and such (by all means I'm no lawer). And then a group of 12 to 13 strangers would have to come up with the decision whether it's true or false...you know how it works. Here's another question you should be asking would the evidence shown be expelled from court as heirsay (sp?) or as concrete?

When was the last time any country consulted the U.N. before taking military action?
I'm not sure, but I don't think Britain waited for a U.N. resolution to be passed before the Falklands incident. I don't think the Serbs and the Croats waited for a U.N. resolution before they destroyed what was Yugoslavia with war. In those vicious genocidal border/tribal conflicts in Africa (I'm remembering Rwanda, I think), I don't think they waited for a U.N. resolution to be passed. In matters of filthy, hateful war, countries act on their own volition. In this matter of disarming the current regime in Iraq (correct spelling), this president has vowed to do whatever it takes, with help or without it.

Furthermore,I don't think the U.N. approved of the bombing of U.S. embassies, or of our warship off the coast of Yemen, and I'm pretty sure the U.N. didn't approve of that incident that has come to be known simply as 9/11.

The U.N. agreed to hold Hussein accountable for dismantling any weapons of "mass destruction" and he simply hasn't done it. You say that many countries violate U.N. resolutions. Maybe so, but when it comes to the issue of weapons of this type, everyone should be "on board" with this (IMO). You should be thankful that you reside in a country that there's no strategic point in attacking. As the weapons won't be used on you or yours, why should you care if Saddam is building an arsenal? My country was attacked recently enough, and I can see the point in keeping nations hostile to us from stockpiling and developing weapons, even if you can't.

Finally, (and I'll go away) I'm proud to live in a country that is criticized by short-sighted malcontents for doing what we think is right, even if the rest of the world doesn't agree. I think that's much better than not doing what you think is right, just so you don't upset your impotent and corrupt neighbor.

Here's what it all comes down to.

If the arms commisions are able to find proof of weapons of mass destruction being made or stocked in Iraq US will go to war to prevent Iraq of using them. Great strategy BTW, start a war at someone in order to make them NOT use their weapons<_<

If the arms commisions are unable to find proof of weapons of mass destruction being made or stocked in Iraq then Saddam is a liar and thief and US needs to go to war cus now you don't know what he's planning.

Well that's one of my points, you can't be right when you end up in a violence resolution. "The end does not justify the means".
The terrorist acts you are talking about are a bunch of lame acts commited by a a coward group who thought that violence was the right choice, as does most violence acts ever commited, including the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which to me are the bigest terrorist acts ever.


It worries me as much as your country has them, because you both are willing to use them. I don't care if they are not to be used in my country, i do care for other peoples lifes, including the iraquies, and the people from the US. But resolving the disarment of iraq by killing millions of people directly or indirectly(starvation) is wrong. Is like killing someone because you think that some day he may kill you!! that's not right.

I won't critizes your country if, doing what he thinks is right did not include killing other people, directly or indirectly.

Sorry in Spanish is with K and i got confused.

Well I just continue my crossfire with speedie down here and pablovi and WB can work their things out simontaniously. :lol:

You can't compare an assault on a woman with this situation unless you would make the comparison "to beat up a woman before she'll fool around".
That's more how the situation's looking, like a bad marriage (Oh yes, the US and Iraq had quite nice relations back in the days. Who do you think supplied Iraq all those biological weapons they are so infamous for using? It sure wasn't Portugal)

For one thing Sadam hasn't done anything that gives the US the right (there are SOME rules in war-ing) to declare war. The explanation that Iraq might have weapons of mass destruction that they might use is so lame that I can't belive how often it is accually used.
Seriosly, that is not a valid reason for a war declaration. Niether is accually having the weapons. As long as Iraq (read Sadam) doesn't pose a threat (and I mean troops marching over the border) to any other country the US has no right to go in.

Well there are some other situations were it would be OK too, like to send a peace keeping UN force in case of a revolution or something like that.

Well, I originally started this thread to see if anyone thought Powells presentation provided the evidence the White House needed to sway the general U.N. opinion. It seems that now were tugging political heartstrings.

Political viewpoints are like opinions or feelings, right or wrong they are ours and we have the right to them. As far as the end of WW2, I don't recall asking Japan to preemptively wake up a sleeping giant on Dec. 7, 1941! Kick a bull in the balls and see what happens to you! As far as you in neutral countries, I very much respect the fact that you are neutral. In todays world that's a very difficult position to hold. Kudos to you. However, I live in a nation which has the resourses to make neutrality impossible.

For those of you who are not speaking German right now due to lack of choice, you owe us some thanks. For those of you of Jewish descent, you owe us some thanks. We were half a world away during the two world wars, nobody was invading our homeland. Yet we came to the aid of the oppressed nations and aided in regaining and retaining their freedom.

ANYONE who is of the mindset that slaughtering innocent people is the way to get what you want is an idiot. Terrorism must be stoppedwhen it can be stopped. I've never said a hars thing about the Muslin people, yet I'm a perfect target for some radical jackass with a bomb strapped to his chest simply because my government supports Israel. As far as Iraq, those WOMD are a real threat to me and those I hold dear. We have very open borders, that's what made the U.S. what it is. We welcome all because we are made of all. It would take nothing for someone with a suitcase full of some agent to wipe out thousands of my countrymen.

Saddam needs to go, North Korea needs to listen and if it takes force to accomplish this then so be it. I have the right to my thoughts, opinions, freedoms, and ability to live my life not in fear. Whatever it takes to preserve this I'm all for. God continue to bless America.

I've really enjoyed the reponse to this thread. Thank you all, have fun and keep posting.

<span style="font-family:Optima">I still think that we should wait for a UN Resolution before taking any action.

It is stupid because i dont think that saddam heussain will ever disarm!

there are about 150000 american,british and australian soldiers there now.
if there is a war half of them will be killed.



</span>